phyllo wrote:God is just another entity that you have a relationship with.

You can love, hate, obey, defy, ignore God.

You are an important part of the relationship.

Imagine if you could pluck 1,000 people at random from around the world. You gather them together and you note this for them.

What would it mean to them? How would they react to it?

Which God? Understood in what manner? In what particular context?

And, sure, while it might be argued that God is just one more thing in your life to interact with, who would really believe that?

And "you"? Your identity? How would it not be an existential contraption with regard to God and religion.

Yes, you can choose to discuss these things in any way that you wish in your day to day interactions with others. But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

Let us then just agree to disagree regarding what that entails.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:I've addressed this above. The historical narratives are clearly in dispute. And capitalism is bursting at the seams with its own horror stories. But, again, it would seem your point of view is that Communism is to be construed only as you portray it. The right way.

He creates a situation in which one 1) presumes moral/value judgments then, see the bolded value judgment 2) says he can see no way to make one objectively and 'wonders' if we can show him how one does that. Objectivists are bad, they make 'objective value judgments', and these lead to horrors.

I presume the existence of morality and value judgments because human interaction revolves around rules of behavior. And clearly in each community it must be decided what those rules will be.

Now, can these rules be predicated on an objective morality? If you think so, note a context in which values might come into conflict, and describe the behaviors that you would either prescribe or proscribe.

Show us how you would go about differentiating them.

And, historically, the objectivists are often thumped by the nihilists when it comes to horror stories.

For example, the nihilists that own and operate the global [capitalist] economy today, pretty much wrap their moral narrative around "show me the money".

Communism, on the other hand, is an ideological contraption. The horrors that it precipitated often revolved around the dictum that you are either one of us or one of them. The either/or mentality of all objectivists. It then becomes a matter of how authoritarian you are willing to be. And [of course] the extent to which you have the political power to enforce your rigid doctrinaire agenda.

With communism [as with fascism and other such dogmas] the nihilistic horrors often revolve around the assumption that the end justifies the means.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: He accused me LOL of being an epistemologist. But he does not seem to realize that his posts claim ONLY to be about epistemology - since he has no way of knowing what is good or bad, good or evil - despite his motivation being precisely that, an urge to reduce the horrors caused by objectivists. If he truly thinks there is no way to know the objective good, he might as well talk about a sports team, because otherwise, this is only a discussion of epistemology, something he thinks is a bad thing to be, a la Will Durant. Talk about irony, since they just stack up and stack up.

Again, bring this down to earth. Note the sort of conflicted human behaviors that precipitate horrors. For example, with abortion some argue that the horror revolves around killing babies, while others insist that, on the contrary, the horror revolves around forcing women to give birth.

Now, how would a competent epistemologist address this? What can in fact be known here such that it is able to be demonstrated as applicable to all of us?

Or you pick the issue and the horrors it can bring about.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: The only possible end to the discussion is precisely what he accuses objectivists of demanding: agreement with his values and epistemology.

All I can do here is to note that I do not construe my own argument as any less an existential contraption. And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, a new experience, relationship or idea might propel me in another direction. As has been the case many times in the past.

What I suspect however is that this common reaction among the objectivists to my frame of mind "here and now" revolves more around my speculation that it is applicable to them as well.

Good and bad as "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein just freaks them out. The idea that in a No God world construed by some to be essentially meaningless and absurd, "I" can rest only on the "intellectual contraptions" they concoct "in their head", is just too discomfiting to seriously consider.

After all, look what is at stake: the comfort and the consolation derived from the conviction that right and wrong behavior must be distinguishable. Why? Because they have in fact already distinguished them.

And that's often when the focus shifts from dealing with people like me, to dealing with all the other moral/political objectivists who share the conviction that right is right and wrong is wrong. But then insist it is their own agenda that nails this.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

It think that people would still be making decisions based on their limited skills and knowledge. IOW, they would still be making the same sort mistakes that they make now.

If an actual existing God made His presense known, everything would revolve around what He either could or could not know, what He either could or could not do.

Though, sure, there may well be any number of folks not aware of His existence. Or, after He made it known how His omniscience could be reconciled with human autonomy, some might freely choose to defy Him. Though here that would seem to be predicated on just how clear God made it regarding the consequences of defying Him.

phyllo wrote: Would God swoop down and smite them immediately when a mistake is made? Would he undo the consequences of the mistake?

Exactly! What actually would happen?

phyllo wrote: That seems incredibly intrusive and oppressive. What kind of human life is that?

Well, God would be around to explain that, right?

phyllo wrote: Is the natural consequence that people sit around waiting for God to tell them what do? After all, if He makes all the decisions then you might as well not think for yourself.

This can only be connected to what the actual existing relationship is between this God and any particular mere mortal.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Imagine if you could pluck 1,000 people at random from around the world. You gather them together and you note this for them.

What would it mean to them? How would they react to it?

What it means to them or how they react is not something I have control over. I put it out there and get some feedback.

I notice that I don't get any particularly thoughtful feedback from you.

Yes, you can choose to discuss these things in any way that you wish in your day to day interactions with others. But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

So you're in a philosophy venue and nobody is able demonstrate the truth about God to you. In fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any value judgements to you.

If I don't demonstrate it, then that's just in line with your expectations.

All you're doing is sitting there going ... "No, not good enough. Next ...". Over and over and over.

But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

IOW if you believe in God on good grounds, you should be able to demonstrate the existence of God via text to a skeptic. Anyone want to parse that for all the silly assumptions in there. Of course some theists are silly and think they can do this. And they are nicely counter-melodied by atheists who think that theists should be able to do this.

Imagine if you could pluck 1,000 people at random from around the world. You gather them together and you note this for them.

What would it mean to them? How would they react to it?

What it means to them or how they react is not something I have control over. I put it out there and get some feedback.

More to the point, in living lives that may well be very, very different from your own, how might that feedback be construed as either constructive or destructive?

In either a God or a No God world.

phyllo wrote: I notice that I don't get any particularly thoughtful feedback from you.

Perhaps then you should stop reading my posts.

On the other hand, would any feedback suppotive of Communism be construed as thoughful by you?

Yes, you can choose to discuss these things in any way that you wish in your day to day interactions with others. But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

phyllo wrote: So you're in a philosophy venue and nobody is able demonstrate the truth about God to you.

But my point is to suggest that narratives relating to God are largely existential contraptions anchored subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.

You tell me: What IS the truth about God?

phyllo wrote: In fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any value judgements to you.

They would first have to note how, with regard to their own conflicting behaviors with others, they not down in the hole that I'm in.

All I can do then is to react to what they tell me. And in the either/or world there are countless things that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us. My "expectations" here are almost always in sync with what is.

Indeed, I eschew a "dismissive" attitude here time and again.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

IOW if you believe in God on good grounds, you should be able to demonstrate the existence of God via text to a skeptic. Anyone want to parse that for all the silly assumptions in there. Of course some theists are silly and think they can do this. And they are nicely counter-melodied by atheists who think that theists should be able to do this.

Come on, let's not forget what is at stake here: immortality, salvation and divine justice.

Which God then? Which Scripture?

Maybe it's just me, but that would seem to be something a mere mortal would want to be rather certain regarding.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

phyllo wrote:Not that he has any clear idea of what "rational " means. That's just another contraption, isn't it?

Well, admittedly I'm not privy to the rock bottom ontological/teleological truth about existence.

But in the interim I'm willing to settle for mathematical truths, scientific truths and logical truths.

And, sure, even moral truths. If they are in fact demonstrated to exist.

But it always still revolves around "I". As I construe this in being a moral nihilist. Here and now. In other words, "I" could come to believe that there are objective moral truths. But how would "I" then go about demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it too?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Someone thinks that all human life on the planet ought to be exterminated : Well you can't argue with that, it's a value judgement. You can't demonstrate that it's a crazy idea. Perfectly rational person.

At some point, you dismiss one guy as a nutter, but the other guy is never a nutter no matter what.

phyllo wrote:Not that he has any clear idea of what "rational " means. That's just another contraption, isn't it?

Well, a determinist who focuses centally Dasein cannot logically believe in rationality. All believe, not just religious ones, the determinist knows he or she is compelled to have and compelled to think they make sense. It is not necessary to add on the distortions of Dasein to this since knowing one is rational about any decision/conclusion is not possible. Knowing one has been. He loves the is ought distinction, but his own philosophy makes the distinction irrelevant and indiscernible.

Someone thinks that all human life on the planet ought to be exterminated : Well you can't argue with that, it's a value judgement. You can't demonstrate that it's a crazy idea. Perfectly rational person.

Indeed, in the first context, there are any number of facts that either can or cannot be established as true [objectively] for all of us. But, sure, there will always be those who insist that since they were not in the actual capsule that landed on the Moon, there's always the possibility that the whole thing was just made up...a government conspiracy.

And, as always, there will be the solipsists. Or those who speculate that everything -- everything -- that we experience from day to day is really just a manifestation of some Sim world, or some cartesean demon's dream.

And how on earth could I demonstrate otherwise?

As for the second context, yes, there may well be those who live lives so fucking miserable that, were they able to, they would readily push the button that blew up the planet.

And how on earth would you go about demonstrating that, philosophically, such a behavior is necessarily irrational and immoral? In a No God world.

The irony here being that, if there is a God, He brings about "extinction events" on planet earth from time to time Himself.

And almost all scientists agree that it is not a question of whether but of when one or another Big One will bring about our own extinction.

So, when this occurs, will this be an example of God acting in a necessarily irrational and immoral manner.

phyllo wrote: At some point, you dismiss one guy as a nutter, but the other guy is never a nutter no matter what.

Here, again, I will need you to note instances of this.

Since, in my view, with respect to God, religion, value judgments and morality, we are all only exchanging "existential contraptions" here, it would never occur to me to label someone a "nutter". That would make me one.

On the other hand, please define a "nutter" for me.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

phyllo wrote:Not that he has any clear idea of what "rational " means. That's just another contraption, isn't it?

Well, a determinist who focuses centally Dasein cannot logically believe in rationality. All believe, not just religious ones, the determinist knows he or she is compelled to have and compelled to think they make sense. It is not necessary to add on the distortions of Dasein to this since knowing one is rational about any decision/conclusion is not possible. Knowing one has been. He loves the is ought distinction, but his own philosophy makes the distinction irrelevant and indiscernible.

If one were a determinist, she would have to acknowledge that her views on determinism [and God and religion and dasein and everything else] were only as they ever could have been.

Period. Immutably.

And what then would that tell us about our exchanges on this thread?

Talk about being "stuck"!!

And, indeed, it would seem ludicrous to make a distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world. Not that we would have any choice but to do so.

But that just begs the question: How exactly would we go about demonstrating this when anything that we attempt to demonstrate [using whatever methodology that we "choose"] is in turn merely a manifestation of whatever brought into existence Existence itself.

Philosophers call these things "antinomies": "a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox."

And this takes us back to a world created either by God [an actual teleological component that mere mortals crave], or to that legendary "brute facticity" embedded in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that for all "living" components of it ends in oblivion.

So, you tell me: which one is it?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

It think that people would still be making decisions based on their limited skills and knowledge. IOW, they would still be making the same sort mistakes that they make now.

to which you responded with:

If an actual existing God made His presense known, everything would revolve around what He either could or could not know, what He either could or could not do.

Which says basically nothing because "everything" is one of those idiot words which means practically nothing. Obviously some human thinking would revolve around God and some would not.

Well, you tell me:

If someday an existing God did in fact make His existence known, how could any particular mere mortal react realistically to that without first being apprised as to what this extant God could/would or could not/would not know about the behaviors they choose and what He could/would or could not/would not do about it?

That's just common sense to me.

If someone is aware of this existing God, he or she would surely respond to this new reality [God having revealed Himself] based on what they surmise this God can know about the behaviors they choose, and on how they surmise this God will react to the behaviors they choose.

If someone was not aware of this God, and chooses a behavior deemed by Him to be a Sin, what would be the consequences? Or, as I noted on another thread:

Imagine hypothetically three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes. The first one is successful. The folks in the first tribe accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and are baptized in the faith. The second is not successful. The folks in the second tribe refuse to accept Christ as their personal savior and instead continue to embrace their own god...their own religion. The third missionary is not even able to find the tribe he was sent out to save.

Now, imagine one member of each tribe dying on the same day a week later. What will be the fate of their souls? Will the man from the first tribe ascend to Heaven having embraced the Christian faith? Will the man from the second tribe burn in Hell for having rejected the Christian faith? And what of the man from the third tribe---he will have died never having even been made aware of the Christian faith. Where does his soul end up?

Okay, imagine in turn this God of yours being around at some hypothetical point in the future?

Then what? How would this change things for mere mortals?

Note to others:

Is his point of an entirely different nature? A point that I keep missing? Please advise.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

So you can't even demonstrate facts which you claim are "true for all of us".

Back again to this: Huh?!!!

I noted this:

"And, as always, there will be the solipsists. Or those who speculate that everything -- everything -- that we experience from day to day is really just a manifestation of some Sim world, or some cartesean demon's dream.

And how on earth could I demonstrate otherwise?"

What "facts" here am I attempting to demonstrate are true for all of us? I am merely noting the sort of speculations that can be broached regarding human interactions. In fact, there are no doubt folks who really do believe in some rather "far out" explanations for, well, everything.

I'm merely noting the gap between the fact that they believe something "in their head" to be true, and the fact that they either have or have not convinced others that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same.

And the extent to which what others believe either is or is not in sync with all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to know this.

phyllo wrote: Therefore, facts and value judgements are in the same boat.

Nuff said.

This is just you -- yet again! -- bringing into sync the fact of this exchange with the "fact" that the arguments you make in it reflects the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

Something I do not do myself regarding my own admitted "existential contraption".

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles